Letters

Landscape changes over renewables

The energy white paper (Labour orders green energy revolution, July 16) makes it clear that to meet the challenge of climate change will require an unprecedented transformation in our acceptance of renewable energy and the infrastructure that goes with it. We have to move from kneejerk nimbyism to an informed consensus about the landscapes where renewable energy infrastructure is desirable and should be encouraged, and the landscapes that should remain sacrosanct. Natural England is already consulting with the wind energy industry to agree guidelines and help all parties understand where the lines are drawn.

There are real dilemmas – one of the most pointed being the Severn estuary, one of Europe's most important wildlife habitats. Should this be sacrificed for renewable energy? Perhaps, but only if it is clear there is no better alternative. And from what I have seen of renewable schemes that have been rejected up and down the country, I seriously doubt that alternatives can't be found.

We need to make space for renewables, but we need a better strategic national assessment about which local environments can support them. It would be a tragic irony if in dealing with climate change we created another environmental disaster by sacrificing our most sensitive habitats and landscapes to continue our unbridled energy use.

Helen Phillips

Chief executive, Natural England

Your article (Severn tidal power scheme should not go ahead, warns Environment Agency, 18 July) on the Severn barrage misrepresents (by omission) my view, and that of the Environment Agency. I believe strongly in the need to harness the tidal power of the Severn estuary for renewable energy. Indeed, wave and tidal power have to become a major component of Britain's energy production. But the original proposal for a wall from Cardiff to Weston-super-Mare has serious drawbacks: the damage to the ecology of the entire river catchment would be severe.

But we are actively seeking alternative ways of using the rise and fall of the Severn to generate electricity: tidal reefs and fences, free-standing lagoons, and other ideas all need to be seriously considered, and it may be that more than one option should be adopted. So, we fully support the UK's renewable energy targets; we want to see the Severn play its full part in achieving those; but we have genuine doubts that the original barrage is the best way to do so.

Chris Smith

Chairman, Environment Agency

If projects such as the Severn barrage do not go ahead then global warming may well result in rising sea levels that would alter the Severn's magnificent estuary and possibly destroy it (Letters, 17 July). There are always good reasons for arguing against such projects, but are they good enough to risk the catastrophic effects of rising global temperatures?